The Christianity practiced today is not the original Christanity
Options
ShadyTeam
Members Posts: 4,894 ✭✭
universal reconcilation is the original and first form of Christianity that existed they put no emphasis on Jeus dying for anyones sin's but believed everyone was saved regardless of their beliefs and it was a very peaceful form of Christianity
It actually has similarities to Hinduism the oldest practiced religion to this day
I feel personally Christianity should have remained in the universal reconcilation form but realistically i feel the peaceful aspect was gonna be over taken by fundemental people and over the years things changed dramatically
It actually has similarities to Hinduism the oldest practiced religion to this day
I feel personally Christianity should have remained in the universal reconcilation form but realistically i feel the peaceful aspect was gonna be over taken by fundemental people and over the years things changed dramatically
Comments
-
religion is religion to me......
-
nope, Hinduism and Christianity don't mix either, sry
-
wasnt Jesus a Buddhist?? lol
-
proove it!! Instead of just saying it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!universal reconcilation is the original and first form of christianity that existed they put no emphasis on jeus dying for anyones sin's but believed everyone was saved regardless of their beliefs and it was a very peaceful form of christianity
it actually has similarities to hinduism the oldest practiced religion to this day
i feel personally christianity should have remained in the universal reconcilation form but realistically i feel the peaceful aspect was gonna be over taken by fundemental people and over the years things changed dramatically -
wasnt Jesus a Buddhist?? lol
What I took from it was he practiced Buddhism in teen years and then had a change of heart thats why those years are left out in the bible and it only focuses on his birth and death -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »What I took from it was he practiced Buddhism in teen years and then had a change of heart thats why those years are left out in the bible and it only focuses on his birth and death
exactly!!!!
amazing how the creators of the Bible pick and chooses what it wants to convey??
sounds like manipulation! lol -
The Bible has changed numerous times...FACT. If it was the word's of ? , the Bible would withstand time. Quran was not written by man and has remained in its original state...FACT.
-
trackreviver wrote: »The Bible has changed numerous times...FACT. If it was the word's of ? , the Bible would withstand time. Quran was not written by man and has remained in its original state...FACT.
3,000+ years and the word of ? is still alive and kicking.
"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our ? shall stand for ever." Isaiah 40:8
Hallelujah! -
I have deep respect for the Bible, but that verse does not hold its ground. Research/Google changes made to the bible...
all i'm saying your bible should be the same (literal translation) as the Bible #1... -
trackreviver wrote: »I have deep respect for the Bible, but that verse does not hold its ground. Research/Google changes made to the bible...
all i'm saying your bible should be the same (literal translation) as the Bible #1...
The Bible has stood the test of time my brother. No debating about it. The message is all about Jesus Christ. Do you know Him my friend? -
define "standing the test of time" because if that's the case why would it need ANY revisions and why are there different versions where some have different books that others don't?
-
supaman4321 wrote: »define "standing the test of time" because if that's the case why would it need ANY revisions and why are there different versions where some have different books that others don't?
The dead sea scrolls are solid proof that the OT has stood the test of time in regards to accuracy. The reliability of the NT is established because the number, date, and accuracy of its manuscripts has enabled reconstruction of the original text with more precision than any other ancient text; making the NT is the best textually supported book from the ancient world. There are over 5,700 greek manuscripts for the NT. The closest comparison is Homers Illiad, which has 643 manuscripts. It's not rocket science brother. -
supaman4321 wrote: »define "standing the test of time" because if that's the case why would it need ANY revisions and why are there different versions where some have different books that others don't?
There R Different vesions, because people started DIFFERENT CHURCHES WITH DIFFERENT DOCTRANTS, FROM THE CHURCH MOSHIA started, havent u studied this already, or r u just jumping to page 500 going on 2 page 1000, with out first starting at page 1-500????????????????? -
what proof is there that the Bible has been altered in regards to what is being taught? None.
-
solid analysis wrote: »what proof is there that the Bible has been altered in regards to what is being taught? None.
Well for starters they created a new testament because the "old one" wasnt good enough, which the old one should be a more accurate one. When Constetine selected which gospels would be in the bible he left some out, which is funny considering somebody else chose what we would know as the word of ? . The gospels that didnt make the cut were supposed to be destroyed yet were put into clay jars and buried so future generations could find them, also funny considering people kept gospels that supposedly werent important. I dare you call me a liar on any of that because when you do im just done cause its then obvious your arent making a solid analysis you're just saying the ? you think is right. And you still havent answered my question in the other thread that youve side stepped about a thousand times, no answer maybe? -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Well for starters they created a new testament because the "old one" wasnt good enough, which the old one should be a more accurate one. When Constetine selected which gospels would be in the bible he left some out, which is funny considering somebody else chose what we would know as the word of ? . The gospels that didnt make the cut were supposed to be destroyed yet were put into clay jars and buried so future generations could find them, also funny considering people kept gospels that supposedly werent important. I dare you call me a liar on any of that because when you do im just done cause its then obvious your arent making a solid analysis you're just saying the ? you think is right. And you still havent answered my question in the other thread that youve side stepped about a thousand times, no answer maybe?
Stopped reading right there. -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Well for starters they created a new testament because the "old one" wasnt good enough, which the old one should be a more accurate one. When Constetine selected which gospels would be in the bible he left some out, which is funny considering somebody else chose what we would know as the word of ? . The gospels that didnt make the cut were supposed to be destroyed yet were put into clay jars and buried so future generations could find them, also funny considering people kept gospels that supposedly werent important. I dare you call me a liar on any of that because when you do im just done cause its then obvious your arent making a solid analysis you're just saying the ? you think is right. And you still havent answered my question in the other thread that youve side stepped about a thousand times, no answer maybe?
Right. For starters, lets use an entirely false premise (like you did) and build an argument on it made out of straw. Now let's knock it down. -
So them making a new testament by adding new stuff and removing bits and pieces out the old testament isnt a big change. Sorry but if you think something thats "? 's word" isnt good enough for the new testament then I guess its useless conversating with either of you. The new testament says that all sins can be forgiven, the old testament does not, Which is right do you know? Why would they be forgivin now and not then, more so who did ? come tell this to for them to make the change?
The Old Testament prophets hundreds of years before, foretold the coming of a second covenant. Moreover, the New Testament also teaches that Old Testament was imperfect because it could not offer forgiveness of sins. Instead, each year the sins were "rolled back" until Christ's ultimate sacrifice. The entire book of Hebrews is devoted to showing that the Old Covenant is inferior to the New, and that New Testament Christians should not abide by this inferior covenant when they have something so superior. In fact, the writer of Hebrews actually quotes the a passage from Jeremiah to make this point (Hebrews 8:6-13). So in a sense Gods saying the followers of the original disciples ? up his word when they wrote the gospels and that what was written isnt good enough like I said.
Another significant difference is who ? gave the covenant to. The Old Testament was a covenant given strictly for the Jews, or Israelites. Non-Jews, or Gentiles, could adopt the Jewish covenant and become "prostelytes", but there was no special law and relationship offered that was for the Gentiles as the Old Testament was for the Jews. However, the New Testament made no distinction. One of the things about the New Testament is that ? 's message and special covenant relationship is extended to all races and peoples. Consequently, the writings of the Old Testament generally track the story of the Israelites with a few exceptions, and the New Testament writings contain the gospel of Jesus and of the spread of the gospel all over the world, as well as directions for the new Christians. Why change all this? Again if the original gospels are true this should already of been included right? If not Id like to know who ? told these to that made them change the writings. Why is it others werent good enough for ? then but are accepted now? To me it seems like ? guy has some bi-polar issues goin on upstairs.
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. ... And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of ? , from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." Hebrews 10:4, 11-14
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Cause I know one of you will say some ish about how it really means Jesus will suffer for our sins, Yes he supposedly suffered for our sins but the book was written after that. It clearly states its impossible for our sins to be taken away, now why in a time when were are probably sinning at the most is it okay to sin and just have it taken back by ? ? Makes no sense to me. -
There R Different vesions, because people started DIFFERENT CHURCHES WITH DIFFERENT DOCTRANTS, FROM THE CHURCH MOSHIA started, havent u studied this already, or r u just jumping to page 500 going on 2 page 1000, with out first starting at page 1-500?????????????????
And nearly every one of those churches has a radically different view of ? and his essence, how can one group of christians claim trinity and another group not but they both claim to be christians?
and you didn't really answer my question, a different version with a different number of books, how can some be kept and others not? so man gets to decide what's ? 's Word and what isn't?
What's stopping some new "church" from completely disregarded whichever books of the bible they want to and claiming it's the authentic Word of ? -
Get The Septuigant Bible, and then, get ALL the other KJV/and other Biblez, and look at them and u'll see the difference in what I'm talkin about, thats all I can say, U got 2 do that 2 C what, I'm talkin bout, it may cost U some $ but thats what it takes in our world 2 get somethin done.supaman4321 wrote: »And nearly every one of those churches has a radically different view of ? and his essence, how can one group of christians claim trinity and another group not but they both claim to be christians?
and you didn't really answer my question, a different version with a different number of books, how can some be kept and others not? so man gets to decide what's ? 's Word and what isn't?
NOTHING, AND IT'S HAPPENIN EVERYDAY!
What's stopping some new "church" from completely disregarded whichever books of the bible they want to and claiming it's the authentic Word of ?
